Euthanasia Effect on People and Institutions

Euthanasia has been a non-ending debate that has been walking in society for many years. Individuals have argued from the religious, political, philosophical, and judicial approaches without an agreement (Barnett et al. 1). In a study on euthanasia among Turkish students, around 73% of them did not approve of it (Karaahmetoglu and Kutahyalioglu 1). In the Netherlands in 2014, 4% of all deaths were because of euthanasia (Groenewoud et al.). Some to end their suffering. Other people state that a person’s life needs to be treated with dignity, and no one has the right to terminate it. The topic directly touches many individuals globally, and thus it is a concerning issue. Euthanasia negatively affects hospital institutions and people’s mental health and psychological stress and causes grief.

Euthanasia would negatively influence health institutions, as it is wrong to assist an individual in dying. The practice takes the health practitioners beyond their scope of practice, emphasizing treating, caring, and ensuring patient safety (Pesut et al. 2). The approach is not treatment; instead, it aims to harm the patient by assisting in treatment through withdrawal of medical intervention. Medical personnel should critically consider palliative care for victims who feel terminally ill instead of killing them. Death is a tormenting beast, and governments should not legalize euthanasia in hospital settings. A hospital is an institution for safeguarding human life, not ending a human life. Would you be happy if a doctor ended your life without your autonomy? One bad thing is that some patients’ lives end without their consent under this practice. Most of the time, it is hard for a physician to accept the death of the patient he was treating; therefore, euthanasia would negatively affect the state of health institutions. Forcing health practitioners to commit euthanasia is putting the weight of the world on their shoulders.

Leaning on legalizing euthanasia leaves leaders in the health sector under psychological stigma. A physician plays a significant role in protecting human life at all times, as sworn in the Hippocratic oath (Boer 2). Doctors intentionally leaving the sick or causing harm to the sick would drain them mentally as they spend many years learning about protecting human life. Human life is gold, and ending it is not the solution to the problems an individual undergoes through. To preserve life and care for patients is a physician’s daily goal. A doctor doing contrary to this would significantly affect his clinical practice. Life is like a diamond that everyone wishes to have. The affected mental health would negatively affect the service the health staff provides to people. Doctors’ mental health needs to be protected at all costs. Doctors’ ethics need to be considered at all times.

Euthanasia creates fear in the community of the value of protecting human life. People’s fear of being killed rather than treated increases when they learn that medical personnel assists individuals in committing suicide (Albaladejo 1). Would you go to a hospital where you heard a physician helped a patient die or withdraw treatment to kill? The fear of people seeking health care will rise, and thus many lives will be lost because of this distress. Most societies consider it unethical to assist an individual in dying. How can a healthy nation be built if hospitals are the avenues to kill people? It is hitting a rock in a desert and expecting a river t come out of it. It is virtually impossible to claim that the government is building a healthy nation if it practices euthanasia. Euthanasia is not a solution; the past problems proclaimed by the persons and heaped on an individual should not make the individual resolve to commit suicide. Life is a river, it keeps flowing, and the problems go away.

The practice of euthanasia creates distrust of the public in the health care system. In a euthanasia-legalized country, people cannot trust the doctors as they believe they can be used in suicide practices rather than protection of life (Petrosyan 5). How can you trust a doctor that you heard assisted your neighbor to die? The procedure causes not only harm to the person but the entire society. Society demands that everyone is entitled to the right to life, and thus euthanasia goes against society’s values. The doctors who practice euthanasia have not adhered to the ethical principles medical education taught them and the Hippocratic oath. Euthanasia is a fire that can burn the whole community if legalized. Allowing the practice gives the doctors excess powers which they can use to harm members of society. Individuals ought to respect their values and avoid euthanasia as a way of escaping the troubles of this world

Euthanasia creates grief among the members of society as lives are lost. Parents leave children as orphans, and families lose their loved ones in this practice, thus the grief (Andriessen et al. 1). Who would have happiness if such a death case happened? Death leaves a united society into fragmentation and confusion, and thus euthanasia would intensify this feeling. Vulnerable populations are pressured to end their lives easier, as they feel someone can assist them in dying quickly. In some severely hospitalized patients, it may not be their wish to die no matter the pain they undergo, but euthanasia can reap away their lives. Grief tastes bitter, like unroasted coffee beans. Legalizing the practice makes the terminally ill people not get the proper attentive care they should deserve. It discourages the research that can cure sick terminally patients, as the practitioners will consider them unimportant. It is religiously unethical to end human life as it is against God’s will. Individuals should give human life the dignity it deserves, and no one may end it. We should live in the light to learn the importance and value of life.

These changes experienced in institutions, communities, and individuals are why the practice should not be incorporated. There are better solutions to the problems experienced rather than ending human life. Giving terminally ill patients palliative care is more important than ending their lives, especially under no will (Avati et al. 3). If an individual feels like committing assisted suicide because of psychological trauma, seeking advice is better than allowing the problem to eat him. The art of medicine incorporates care and treatment of the patient, going against its dictates the contrary of the stipulated medical practice. They should prohibit the practice as it gives the physician excess power to terminate many lives unfairly.

The protection of human life is a top priority regardless of the situation. Individuals need to consider better and suitable outcomes rather than resolving to end their lives. Euthanasia negatively affects the health sector and doctors. The doctors’ psychological health is adversely affected, and people’s trust in them decreases if euthanasia is legalized. The terminally ill should be given palliative care; practitioners should not use the lack of autonomy to end lives. Euthanasia causes a death that could have otherwise been avoided, especially in stressed individuals who require psychological support. Hospitals should serve as institutions of treatment, not ending lives.

Works Cited

Albaladejo, Angelika. “Fear of Assisted Dying: Could it Lead to Euthanasia on Demand or Worsen Access to Palliative Care?” BMJ, 2019, p. l852, Web.

Andriessen, Karl, et al. “Grief after Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Crisis, 2019, pp. 1–18, Web.

Avati, Anand, et al. “Improving Palliative Care with Deep Learning.” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 18, no. S4, 2018, Web.

Barnett, Michael D., et al. “Attitudes toward Euthanasia among Hospice Nurses: Political Ideology or Religious Commitment?Death Studies, 2018, pp. 1–6, Web.

Boer, Theo A. “Dialectics of Lead: Fifty Years of Dutch Euthanasia and Its Lessons.” International Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 75, no. 2, 2018, pp. 239–250, Web.

Groenewoud, A. Stef, et al. “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: A Claims Data Cross-Sectional Study of Geographical Variation.” BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 2021, p.1-11, Web.

Karaahmetoglu, Gulsen Ulas, and Nesibe Sumeyye Kutahyalioglu. “Attitudes toward Euthanasia among Turkish University Students.OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, vol. 79, no. 2, 2017, pp. 174–90, Web.

Pesut, Barbara, et al. “Nursing and Euthanasia: A Narrative Review of the Nursing Ethics Literature.Nursing Ethics, vol. 27, no. 1, 2019, p. 152-167, Web.

Twycross, Robert. “Assisted Dying Survey: Support Differs for Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia.” BMJ, 2020, p. 371, Web.

Find out your order's cost